The loss of bringing the Kestrel Aircraft Co. production center to the facilities at Brunswick Landing may be worth a modest lament.

From my review, I suspect likely project failure in three to five years. The airplane is somewhat unique, offering higher speed capability, but it appears to demand higher fuel consumption and notably higher cost than comparable planes already on the market.

It must win a market position in a corporate aircraft arena already served by a number of well established companies, such as Beechcraft, Cessna, Piper and Embra Air — as well as a plethora of European companies.

Further, most aircraft in this domain are two-engine planes for safety reasons. They require a full staff of support in- flight crew and maintenance, with insurance being no laughing matter.

In the current economic conditions, corporations are not hot for this type of airplane. In fact, the highest growth area is in renovation, modification and updating of existing aircraft.

Used aircraft brokers are loaded with similar models with two reciprocating engines and very conventional long-life airframes, but which are in need of upgrades in instrumentation, navigation and communication electronics. Those brokers typically offer interior and exterior redos as part of the sales package.

Beechcraft undertook a program in the late 1980s to build a slightly bigger airplane than the Kestrel. It was called the Starship.

The proposed Starship had two pusher turboprops; advanced airframe technology and material; and a superior aerodynamic design to enable maximum cruise efficiency.

The proposed price tag was $22 million, and about 12 were made. Eight sold before the project folded in 1994.

The economics of Kestrel project have not been revealed. Trying to build reliable and inspector-approved aircraft, even if only the airframe, will take a three- to five-year training program that will double or triple the hourly cost.

Using my nearly 50-year background in aircraft and aerospace companies, I’ve constructed an economic model for the selling price of the Kestrel that comes out in the range of $5 million to $8 million per aircraft.

To recover the $100 million front-load investment will require a production run of 1,000 aircraft; and that’s about a 12- to 15-year production run.

I’ll leave it to someone in sales to find the 1,000 buyers.

Brunswick Landing’s current position may be the best possible, i.e. a limited role in finishing off the product assembly for the buyer. This way we have a limited investment in a very risky and probably short-lived project.

It might have some degree of success and may grow in size at Brunswick Landing, and without such a heavy investment risk for Maine.

I have been exposed to the very aggressive character of the Wisconsin Development Commission for risky undertakings in this underdeveloped area of the state. The commission probably undertook this high risk project in view of the poor economic situation of heavy industry slowdown in the greater Milwaukee area of down east Wisconsin.

I think also that the message is quite clear for Maine. The Maine economic development or redevelopment authority needs a much stronger range of potential action than has happened in the Kestrel situation. The old standard of putting a token nickel up and political promises to get major investment from venture capitalists and Wall Street has no play today.

These players have developed a taste for high profits and short return profile — ignoring the risks and passing them on.

As many of the articles spawned by the Kestrel project have indicated, Maine has no real, very active governmental agency focused solely on economic development. A commission is warranted.

While they might not be a model for Maine, the most successful economies of the world today are socialistic or communist in character. The local government dominantly controls the assets of industries through partial ownership and financial lending or investment control.

It is time for Maine to develop a model that works for Maine.

Greed should drive a broadly based economic development commission too; however, the standard must be the greater good for the state’s population on a broadly based democratic scope of action: Not 99 percent of the assets owned and controlled by 1 percent of the population.

Economic development commissions are not asset hand-out operations, just like the Fed should not have been in saving the banks and Wall Street. In both cases, it is the hard earned money of the people, paid in the form of taxes to state or federal governments.

Any money paid out should have a specific payback plan including interest and/or a stock block ownership in the operation such as what can be found in European countries.

To summarize: In my view, Kestrel was looking for a free handout. However, I believe the project will fail for the lack of a market entry prospects.

As far as I can perceive, a creditable plan to address this and means to pay back borrowed assets is not evident. In fact, the jobs offered will likely disappear within a couple of years.

That is not a job creator; that is only temporary employment with no benefits.

EDWARD A. CHAMBERS of Brunswick worked for 44 years in the aviation industry.

[email protected]